Tuesday, September 13, 2005

Low Household Savings Rate - In the Canadian Context

I made a post about the current status of the American economy and their savings rate a few weeks ago (re: Greenspan Got It Right (again)!!).

This time, instead of focusing on the American economy, a similar phenomenon has been happening in Canada. Although our household savings rate is not as low as our neighbour's, the sign is not encouraging at all.

The Americans are having a -0.5% household savings rate (yes, it is a negative number, which means foreign countries are financing Americans' consumptions - just like what I stated a few weeks ago, and Americans are loading up their debt.)

We, the Canadians, are not much better. Our household savings rate is at the lowest on record; only at 0.5% - which means, on average, for every $100 a household earned, only $0.50 is put into savings.

Mr. Tal, the CIBC economist (see the G&M article below), basically stated what I said a few weeks ago - but in the context of the Canadian economy.

Households with no savings will suffer much more then those with savings. Savings in bank accounts help to absorb shocks brought by recessions (and that echoes my point that the U.S. is heading for a painful recession whenever it happens.)

The bright side of the picture for Canadians is most of our governments are running surpluses. Effects of shocks from a recession can be partially eased off by government spending.

Therefore, when a recession hits this continent (which will not be far away), the Canadian economy should not suffer as much as the American economy would - and let's hope that will be the case.
-------------------
Canadians not saving enough

By TAVIA GRANT

Tuesday, September 13, 2005 Updated at 3:11 PM EDT

Globe and Mail Update

Canada's personal savings rate has dropped to its lowest level since the 1920s in recent months, a phenomenon that one economist said is making people more vulnerable to economic shocks.

While the personal savings rate has been in a freefall for years, most economists had dismissed it as a poor indicator, saying the rate doesn't reflect soaring prices for assets such as houses, which have jumped almost 50 per cent since 1997 alone.

But Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce senior economist Benjamin Tal said Tuesday the indicator shows Canadians are not saving enough to cushion them from any sudden change in economic conditions. Moreover, real-estate holdings tend to be illiquid and house prices are expected to level off in the coming year.

“The negative savings rate is reducing flexibility as far as households are concerned,” said Mr. Tal in an interview. “That will have an impact on their ability to respond to any economic shocks, be it higher energy prices, higher interest rates or an economic recession.”

Because Canadians have almost no savings, economic shocks could be exacerbated by a slowdown in consumer spending, the main driver of Canadian economic growth, Mr. Tal said.

His report comes after Statistics Canada said last month that the rate plummeted to 0.5 per cent in the second quarter. In the U.S., meantime, the personal savings rate stands at minus 0.6 per cent, the lowest level on record.

While the methodology of calculating the rate may be flawed because it doesn't include asset prices, it's been compiled in the same way for decades. Ten years ago it stood at 10 per cent, 20 years ago at 20 per cent — an indication of a significant downwards trend, he said. Moreover, all age groups have seen a steady drop in their savings rate, Mr. Tal said in the report.

He attributed the falling rate to a number of reasons, among them lower inflation expectations, an extended period of low interest rates, a slower pace of personal income growth and changing financial attitudes.

This, combined with a real-estate boom, has turned Canadians into passive savers, with most of their money tied up in their homes, he said. And while financial assets, or more liquid assets, have been climbing in recent years, it's been mostly concentrated among older Canadians. At least 40 per cent of Canadian households have no financial savings outside of their personal savings and chequing accounts, he wrote.

Overall, CIBC recommended Canadians start building up their nest eggs — especially as guaranteed investment certificates offer low returns.

“The practical implication of this environment is that young Canadians today must start saving very early in their life compared to previous generations,” the report said. “Our findings as presented in this report suggest this is not happening.”

© Copyright 2005 Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved.

5 Comments:

Blogger Clinton P. Desveaux said...

Well that was a good read, I enjoyed that; the problem of course is that central banks are run by statists. Statists want to get re-elected so rates remain below natural market levels.
I love your blog by the way, besides myself it isn't very often I find someone who posts stuff about the money supply!

9/13/2005 7:55 p.m.  
Blogger X said...

Thanx Clinton. You sound like a monetarist to me.....correct me if I'm wrong.

I assume when you mention "rates", it means interest rates.

There are reasons to have low interest rates, and adjusting interest rates is a tool that central bankers use to "guide" the economy.

Personally, I can't see that interest rates can be "artificially suppressed" by central bankers for a lengthy amount of time in a free market economy (however, it can be done temporary - i.e. in Hong Kong, during the 1997 financial meltdown when its currency market, the peg, was under currency speculators attack), as the market force will make the economy pay a heavy price for doing so.

Interest rate is all about expectations, and I praise John Crow, the former Bank of Canada Governor, to establish the "zero-inflation policy" in the late 1980s.

Crow is the first ever central banker to implement such a policy, and that was one of the biggest reason why the interest rate came down during the 1990s.

One of the key goals for modern central banks is to keep inflation and interest rate at a low, predictable level.


dc

9/13/2005 11:26 p.m.  
Blogger Clinton P. Desveaux said...

I gave up on being a "monetarist" as I discovered just how much the Chicago School tainted the rates with Milton.

I'm a solid Austrian School guy. I have everything by Ludwig von Mises and Hayek. Plus I love the early Robert Mundell before he jumped ship over to Milton.

Banks don't understand markets, nor do Central bankers understand markets in my view because the market it far to large and free to understand. Sometimes people are irrational, illogical, and unreasonable which causes actions to happen in the short term which central banks will never understand or will react to slowly because of there very size.

9/14/2005 7:35 p.m.  
Blogger X said...

I partially agree with you that banks don't understand markets, nor do central bankers. That is how Herbert Simon and others gave birth to Behaviourial Economics, as people are not always rational. In a sense, that is "the animal spirit", that Keynes wrote about in "The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money", that drives human behaviours.

I do have a few points to comment on your "Gold Standard" post. Anyhow, I just need some time to collect my thoughs.....and maybe I'll do that some time over the weekend......


dc

9/15/2005 4:45 p.m.  
Blogger Clinton P. Desveaux said...

I have a classic book for you which changed economic history forever. Luudwig von Mises is my God to be honest. The true dean of the Austrian school. He taught von Hayek and Milton. If you read his,"Theory of Money and Credit 1912" it will blow you away and you will never look at rates and supply in the same way again!

9/15/2005 7:47 p.m.  

Post a Comment

<< Home